Local energy estimates for the finite element method on sharply varying grids

Abstract: Local energy error estimates for the finite element method for elliptic problems were originally proved in 1974 by Nitsche and Schatz. These estimates show that the local energy error may be bounded by a local approximation term, plus a global "pollution" term that measures the influence of solution quality from outside the domain of interest and is heuristically of higher order. However, the original analysis of Nitsche and Schatz is restricted to quasi-uniform grids. We present local a priori energy estimates that are valid on shape regular grids, an assumption which allows for highly graded meshes and which much more closely matches the typical practical situation. Our chief technical innovation is an improved superapproximation result.

\section{Introduction}
In this note we prove local energy error estimates for the finite element method for second-order linear elliptic problems on highly refined triangulations.  Most a priori error analyses for the finite element method in norms other than the global energy norm place severe restrictions on the mesh.   In particular, such error analyses are most often carried out under the assumption that the grid is {\it quasi uniform}, that is, all simplices in the mesh are required to have diameter equivalent to some fixed parameter $h$.  The typical practical situation is rather different.  Many (especially adaptive) finite element codes enforce only {\it shape regularity} of elements, meaning that all elements in the mesh must have bounded aspect ratio.  Though it places a weak restriction upon the rate with which the diameters of elements in the mesh may change, shape regularity allows for the locally refined meshes that are needed to resolve the singularities and other sharp local variations of the solution that occur in the majority of practical applications.

In the work \cite{NS74} of Nitsche and Schatz, local energy error estimates were established for  interior subdomains under the assumption that the finite element grid is quasi-uniform.  Such local energy estimates are helpful in understanding basic error behavior, especially ``pollution effects'' of global solution properties on local approximation quality, and they also provide an important technical tool in many proofs of pointwise bounds for the finite element method (cf. \cite{SW95}).  In addition, the most relevant error notion in applications is often related to some {\it local} norm or functional instead of to the global energy error, as evidenced by the recent surge of interest in ensuring control of the error in calculating  ``quantities of interest'' in adaptive finite element calculations instead of merely controlling the default global energy error (cf. \cite{BR01}).    As a final example of the applicability of local energy estimates, we mention that the estimates of \cite{NS74} have been used to justify certain approaches to parallelization and adaptive meshing (cf. \cite{BH00}).  Thus local energy estimates are of broad and fundamental importance in finite element theory.

Here we prove local energy error estimates under the assumption that the finite element triangulation is shape regular instead of under the more restrictive assumption of quasi uniformity required in \cite{NS74}.  In other words, we essentially prove that the results of Nitsche and Schatz hold under the restrictions typically placed upon meshes in practical codes, which in particular allow for highly graded grids.  Our main innovation is a novel ``superapproximation'' result which we state and prove in \S2.  In \S3 we then prove a local energy bound that is valid on grids that are only assumed to be shape-regular.  As in \cite{NS74}, our results are valid for operators that are only {\it locally} elliptic, so that the PDE under consideration may be degenerate or change type outside of the domain of interest.  In contrast to \cite{NS74}, the results we present here are valid up to the domain boundary, allow for nonhomogeneous Neumann, Dirichlet, and mixed boundary conditions, and also require only $L_\infty$ regularity of the coefficients of the differential operator.

\section{An improved superapproximation result}
\label{sec2}
An essential feature of the proofs of local error estimates given in \cite{NS74}, and also of essentially all published proofs of local and maximum-norm a priori error estimates for finite element methods, is the use of superapproximation properties.  In essence, superapproximation bounds establish that a function in the finite element space multiplied by any smooth function can be approximated exceptionally well by the finite element space.

In order to fix thoughts, we shall in this section assume for simplicity that $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a polyhedral domain; a more general situation is considered in \S3 below.  Let $\mathcal{T}_h$ be a simplicial decomposition of $\Omega$.  Denote by $h_T$ the diameter of the element $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$.  We assume throughout that the elements in $\mathcal{T}_h$ are shape-regular, that is, each simplex $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$ contains a ball of diameter $c_1 h_T$ and is contained in a ball of radius $C_1 h_T$, where $c_1$ and $C_1$ are fixed.  Let also $S_h^r$ be a standard Lagrange finite element space consisting of continuous piecewise polynomials of degree $r-1$.   We shall use standard notation for Sobolev spaces, norms, and seminorms, e.g., $\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}=(\int_\Omega (u^2+|\nabla u|^2) \hspace{2pt}{\rm d}x )^{1/2}$, $|u|_{W_p^k(\Omega)}=(\sum_{|\alpha|=k} \|D^\alpha u\|_{L_p(\Omega)}^p)^{1/p}$, etc.

A standard superapproximation result is as follows.  Let $\omega \in C^\infty(\Omega)$ with $|\omega|_{W_\infty^j(\Omega)} \le C d^{-j}$, $0 \le j \le r$.  Then for each $\chi \in S_h^r$, there exists $\eta \in S_h^r$ such that for each $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$ satisfying $d \ge h_T$,
\begin{equation}
\|\omega \chi-\eta\|_{H^1(T)} \le C( \frac{h_T}{d} \|\nabla \chi\|_{L_2(T)}+ \frac{h_T}{d^2} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}).
\label{eq2-1}
\end{equation}
Our modified result follows (cf. \cite{Guz06}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{t2-1}
Let $\omega \in C^\infty(\Omega)$ with $|\omega|_{W_\infty^j(\Omega)} \le C d^{-j}$ for $0 \le j \le r$.  Then for each $\chi \in S_h^r$, there exists $\eta \in S_h^r$ such that for each $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$ satisfying $d \ge h_T$,
\begin{equation}
\| \omega^2 \chi - \eta\|_{H^1(T)} \le C (\frac{h_T}{d} \|\nabla (\omega \chi)\|_{L_2(T)}+ \frac{h_T}{d^2} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}).
\label{eq2-2}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark} {\rm
There are two differences between (\ref{eq2-1}) and (\ref{eq2-2}).  First, in (\ref{eq2-1}) we consider approximation of $\omega \chi$, whereas in (\ref{eq2-2}) we consider approximation of $\omega^2 \chi$.  Secondly, in (\ref{eq2-1}) the norms on the right hand side involve only $\chi$, whereas in (\ref{eq2-2}) the $H^1$ seminorm involves $\omega \chi$.  If we think of $\omega$ as a cutoff function, this distinction becomes vitally important:  $\omega \chi$ has the same support as $\omega^2 \chi$, whereas the support of $\chi$ is generally larger than that of $\omega \chi$.  This seemingly minor difference will allow us to establish local energy estimates on grids that are only assumed to be shape regular.
}\end{remark}

\begin{proof} Let $I_h:C^0(\Omega) \rightarrow S_h^r$ be the standard Lagrange interpolant.  We shall choose $\eta=I_h (\omega^2 \chi)$ in (\ref{eq2-2}).  For $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$, we may use standard approximation theory (cf. \cite{BS02}) to calculate
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\|\omega^2 \chi-I_h(\omega^2\chi)\|_{H^1(T)} \le & C h_T^{n/2} \|\omega^2 \chi-I_h (\omega^2 \chi)\|_{W_\infty^1(T)}
\\ \le & C h_T^{n/2+r-1} | \omega^2 \chi|_{W_\infty^{r}(T)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq2-3}
\end{equation}
Noting that $D^\alpha \chi=0$ for all multiindices $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|=r$, recalling that $\frac{h_T}{d} \le 1$, and employing inverse estimates, we compute
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
C h_T^{n/2+r-1} & | \omega^2 \chi|_{W_\infty^{r}(T)} \le  C (\sum_{i=2}^r h_T^{i-1} |\omega^2|_{W_\infty^i(T)}) \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}
\\ & + Ch_T^{n/2+r-1} \sum_{|\alpha|=1, |\beta|=r-1} \|D^\alpha \omega^2 D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)}
\\ \le & C \frac{h_T}{d^2} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}+Ch_T^{n/2+r-1} \sum_{|\alpha|=1, |\beta|=r-1} \|D^\alpha \omega^2 D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq2-4}
\end{equation}

We next consider the terms $\|D^\alpha \omega^2 D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)}$ above.  Since $|\alpha|=1$, we have $D^\alpha \omega^2=2 \omega D^\alpha \omega$.  Let $\hat{\omega}=\frac{1}{|T|} \int_T \omega \hspace{2pt}{\rm d}x$ so that $\|\omega-\hat{\omega}\|_{L_\infty(T)} \le C h_T |\omega|_{W_\infty^1(T)} \le C \frac{h_T}{d}$.  Employing inverse estimates, we thus have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Ch_T^{n/2+r-1} & \sum_{|\alpha|=1, |\beta|=r-1} \|D^\alpha \omega^2 D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)}
\\ \le & C d^{-1} h_T^{n/2+r-1} \sum_{|\beta|=r-1} \|\omega D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)}
\\  \le & C d^{-1} h_T^{n/2+r-1} \sum_{|\beta|=r-1} (\|(\omega-\hat{\omega}) D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)}+\|\hat{\omega} D^\beta \chi\|_{L_\infty(T)})
\\ \le & C (\frac{h_T}{d^2} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}+\frac{h_T}{d} |\hat{\omega} \chi|_{H^1(T)})
\\ \le & C (\frac{h_T}{d^2} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}+\frac{h_T}{d} |(\hat{\omega}-\omega) \chi|_{H^1(T)}+\frac{h_T}{d} |\omega \chi|_{H^1(T)}).
\end{split}
\label{eq2-5}
\end{equation}
Using an inverse inequality, we find that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{h_T}{d} |(\hat{\omega}-\omega) \chi|_{H^1(T)} \le &\frac{h_T}{d} (|\omega|_{W_\infty^1(T)} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}+ \|\hat{\omega}-\omega\|_{L_\infty(T)} |\chi|_{H^1(T)})
\\ \le & C\frac{h_T}{d} (\frac{1}{d} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}+\frac{h_T}{d} |\chi|_{H^1(T)})
\\ \le & C\frac{h_T}{d^2} \|\chi\|_{L_2(T)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq2-6}
\end{equation}
Inserting (\ref{eq2-6}) into (\ref{eq2-5}) and the result into (\ref{eq2-4}) and (\ref{eq2-3}) completes the proof of (\ref{eq2-2}).
\end{proof}

\section{Local $H^1$ estimates}
In this section we state and prove a local $H^1$ estimate that is valid on highly graded grids.  We now let $\Omega$ be a domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$, and let $\Omega_0$ be a bounded subdomain of $\Omega$.  We decompose $\partial \Omega \cap \partial \Omega_0$ (if it is nonempty) into a Dirichlet portion $\Gamma_D$ and a Neumann portion $\Gamma_N$.  For the sake of simplicity, we assume that $\Gamma_D$ is polyhedral and that $\Gamma_N$ is either polyhedral or Lipschitz.  Let $u$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
-\mathop{\rm div}(A \nabla u)+b\cdot \nabla u+cu=&f \hbox{ in } \Omega_0,
\\u=&g_D \hbox{ on } \Gamma_D,
\\ \frac{\partial u}{\partial n_A}=&g_N \hbox{ on } \Gamma_N.
\end{split}
\label{eq3-1}
\end{equation}
Here $A$ is an $n \times n$ coefficient matrix that is uniformly bounded and positive definite in $\Omega$, $b \in L_\infty(\Omega_0)^n$, $c \in L_\infty(\Omega_0)$, and $\frac{\partial}{\partial n_A}$ is the conormal derivative with respect to $A$.  We also assume that $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$.   Note that we make no assumptions about the differential equation solved by $u$ outside of $\Omega_0$.

Let $H_{D,0}^1(\Omega_0)=\{ u \in H^1(\Omega_0):u|_{\Gamma_D}=0 \}$, and let $H_{D}^1(\Omega_0)=u \in H^1(\Omega_0):u|_{\Gamma_D}=g_D\}$.  Also let  $H_<^1(B)=\{u \in H^1(\Omega_0): u|_{\Omega \setminus B}=0\}$ for subsets $B$ of $\Omega_0$.  Thus functions in $H_<^1(B)$ are zero on $\partial B \setminus \partial \Omega$, but may be nonzero on portions of $\partial B$ coinciding with $\partial \Omega$, or put in other terms, functions in $H_<^1(B)$ are compactly supported in $B$ modulo $\partial \Omega$.  Rewriting (\ref{eq3-1}) in its weak form, we find that $u \in H_{D}^1(\Omega_0)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
L(u,v):=&\int_\Omega (A \nabla u \nabla v +b\cdot \nabla u v+cuv)\hspace{2pt}{\rm d}x
\\ =&\int_\Omega fv \hspace{2pt}{\rm d}x-\int_{\Gamma_N} g_N v \hspace{2pt}{\rm d} \sigma, ~ v \in H_{D,0}^1(\Omega) \cap H_<^1(\Omega_0).
\end{split}
\label{eq3-2}
\end{equation}

Following \cite{NS74}, we do not assume that $L$ is coercive over $H^1(\Omega_0)$, but rather we make a {\it local} coercivity assumption:
\vspace{3pt}
\newline {\it R1:  Local coercivity.}  There exists a constant $d_0>0$ such that if $B$ is the intersection of any open sphere of diameter $d \le d_0$ with $\Omega_0$, then $L$ is coercive over $H_<^1(B)$, that is, for some constant $C_1>0$,
\begin{equation}
(C_1)^{-1} \|u\|_{H^1(B)}^2 \le L(u,u) \le C_1 \|u\|_{H^1(B)}^2, ~ u \in H_<^1(B).
\label{eq3-2-1}
\end{equation}

\begin{remark}
\label{rem3-1}
{\rm R1 may be satisfied in one of two ways.  It may happen that $L$ is coercive over $H^1(\Omega_0)$, in which case no further argument is needed.  R1 so long as a Poincar\'e inequality
\begin{equation}
\|u\|_{L_2 (B)} \le Cd\|u\|_{H^1(B)}
\label{eq3-2-1a}
\end{equation}
holds for balls $B$ as in R1 having small enough diameter (cf. Remark 1.2 of \cite{NS74}).  Such Poincar\'e inequalities always hold for interior balls.  If $B$ is the nontrivial intersection of an open ball with $\Omega$, then (\ref{eq3-2-1a}) holds for $d \le d_1$ small enough under the restrictions we have placed on $\partial \Omega \cap \partial \Omega_0$; here $d_1$ depends on the properties of $\partial \Omega \cap \partial \Omega_0$. } \end{remark}

Next we make assumptions concerning the finite element approximation $u_h$ of $u$.  Let $\mathcal{T}_0$ be a triangulation such that $\Omega_0 \subset \cup_{T \in \mathcal{T}_0} \overline{T}$ and $T \cap \Omega_0 \neq \emptyset$ for all $T \in \mathcal{T}_0$.  Let $h_T=diam(T)$ for $T \in \mathcal{T}_0$.  We denote our trial finite element space by $S_D$.  We do not assume that $S_D \subset H_D^1(\Omega)$.  In addition, we let $S_{D,0}=S_D \cap  H_{D,0}^1(\Omega_0)$ be our trial finite element space.  We assume that $u_h$ is the local finite element approximation to $u$ on $\Omega_0$, that is, $u_h \in S_D$ and
\begin{equation}
L(u-u_h, v_h)=0 \hbox{ for all } v_h \in S_{D,0} \cap H_<^1(\Omega_0).
\label{eq3-2-3}
\end{equation}
We do not explicitly fix $u_h$ on the Dirichlet portion of the boundary, but rather implicitly assume that  $u_h|_{\Gamma_D}$ is set equal to some appropriate interpolant or projection of $g_D$.

Next we state properties that $S_D$ and $S_{D,0}$ must possess in order to prove the desired local energy error estimate.  Let $\tilde{d} \le d_0$ be a fixed parameter, and let $G_1$ and $G$ be arbitrary subsets of $\Omega_0$ with $G_1 \subset G$ and $dist(G_1, \partial G \setminus \partial \Omega) =\tilde{d}>0$.  Then the following are assumed to hold:
\vspace{3pt}
\newline {\it A1:  Local interpolant.}  There exists a local interpolant $I$ such that for each $u \in H_<^1(G_1)$, $I u \in S_D  \cap H_<^1(G)$, and for each $ u \in H_{D,0}^1(\Omega_0)$, $I u \in S_{D,0}$.
\vspace{3pt}
\newline {\it A2:  Inverse properties.}  For each $\chi \in S_D$, $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$, $1 \le p \le q \le \infty$, and $0 \le \nu \le s \le r$ with $r$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}
\|\chi\|_{W_q^s(T)} \le C h_T^{\nu-s +\frac{n}{p}-\frac{n}{q}} \|\chi\|_{W_p^\nu(T)}.
\label{eq3-2-4}
\end{equation}
\vspace{3pt}
\newline {\it A3:  Superapproximation.}  Let $\omega \in C^\infty(\Omega_0) \cap H_<^1(G_1)$ with $|\omega|_{W_\infty^j(\Omega_0)} \le C d^{-j}$ for integers $0 \le j \le r$ with $r$ sufficiently large.  For each $\chi \in S_{D,0}$  and for each $T \in \mathcal{T}_h$ satisfying $d \le h_T$,
\begin{equation}
\| \omega^2 \chi - I (\omega^2 \chi) \|_{H^1(T)}  \le C (\frac{h_T}{d} \|\nabla (\omega \chi) \|_{L_2(T)}+ \frac{h_T}{d^2} \| \chi\|_{L_2(T)}),
\label{eq3-2-2}
\end{equation}
where the interpolant $I$ is as in A1 above.

\begin{remark}{\rm A1, A2, and A3 are satisfied by standard finite element spaces defined on shape-regular triangular grids.  A1 also essentially requires that the finite element mesh resolve $G \setminus G_1$, i.e., that $\tilde{d} \ge K \max_{T \cap G \neq \emptyset} h_T$ with $K$ large enough.
} \end{remark}

We begin by proving a Caccioppoli-type estimate for ``discrete harmonic'' functions.  Such a statement was also proved in \cite{NS74} as a preliminary to local energy estimates, though the proof we give below more closely follows \cite{SW77}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem3-1}
Let $G_0 \subset G \subset \Omega_0$ be given, and let $dist(G_0, \partial G \setminus \partial \Omega)=d$ with $d \le 2 d_0$ where $d_0$ is the parameter defined in the assumption R1.  Let also A1, A2, and A3 hold with $\tilde{d}=\frac{d}{4}$, and assume that $u_h \in S_{D,0}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
L(u_h, v_h)=0 \hbox{ for all } v_h \in S_{D,0} \cap H_<^1(\Omega_0).
\label{eq3-9-a}
\end{equation}
In addition let $\max_{T \cap G \neq \emptyset} \frac{h_T}{d} \le \frac{1}{4}$.  Then
\begin{equation}
\|u_h\|_{H^1(G_0)} \le
 C\frac{1}{d} \|u_h\|_{L_2(G)}.
\label{eq3-9-b}
\end{equation}
Here $C$ depends only on the constants in (\ref{eq3-2-4}) and (\ref{eq3-2-2}) and the coefficients of $L$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} We assume that $G_0$ is the intersection of a ball $B_{\frac{d}{4}}$ of radius $\frac{d}{4}$ with $\Omega_0$; the general case may be proved using a covering argument.  Let then $G_1$ and $G_2$ be the intersections with $\Omega_0$ of balls having the same center as $G_0$ and having radii $\frac{d}{2}$ and $\frac{3d}{4}$, respectively, and without loss of generality let $G$ be the corresponding ball of radius $d$.  Let then $\omega \in C_0^\infty(G_1)$ be a cutoff function which is $1$ on $G_0$ and which satisfies $\|\omega\|_{W_\infty^j(G_1)} \le Cd^{-j}$, $0 \le j \le r$.  We may then apply the assumptions A1 through A3 to the pairs $G_1$ and $G_2$, and $G_2$ and $G$.

Using (\ref{eq3-2-1}), we first compute that
\begin{equation}
\|u_h\|_{H^1(G_0)}^2 \le \|\omega u_h \|_{H^1(G)}^2 \le  CL(\omega u_h ,\omega u_h).
\label{eq3-4}
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $\|\nabla \omega \|_{L_\infty(\Omega)} \le \frac{C}{d}$, we compute that for any $\epsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
L(\omega&u_h, \omega u_h)= L(u_h,\omega^2 u_h)
 \\ & - \int_\Omega u_h [ A \nabla(\omega u_h) \nabla \omega +u_h A \nabla \omega \nabla \omega
 + A \nabla \omega \nabla (\omega u_h) +\omega u_h b \nabla \omega ]\hspace{2pt}{\rm d}x
 \\ \le & |L(u_h, \omega^2 u_h)|+ C\frac{1}{d^2 \epsilon} \|u_h\|_{L_2(G)}^2+\epsilon \|\omega u_h \|_{H_1(G)}^2 .
\end{split}
\label{eq3-5}
\end{equation}
Next we use (\ref{eq3-9-a}), (\ref{eq3-2-2}),  and the fact that $\|\omega^2 u_h\|_{H^1(G)} \le \|\omega u_h\|_{H^1(G)}+\frac{C}{d}\|u_h\|_{L_2(G)}$ to compute
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
L( u_h, \omega^2 u_h) = & L(u_h, \omega^2 u_h-I (\omega^2 u_h))
\\ \le &
C \sum_{T \cap G_2 \neq \emptyset} h_T \|u_h\|_{H^1(T)} (\frac{1}{d} |\omega  u_h|_{H^1(T)}+\frac{1}{d^2} \|u_h\|_{L_2(T)}).
\end{split}
\label{eq3-6}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq3-2-4}) and the fact that $\frac{h_T}{d} \le 1$, we have for $\epsilon$ as above that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
C h_T \|u_h&\|_{H^1(T)}   (\frac{1}{d} |\omega u_h|_{H^1(T)}+\frac{1}{d^2} \|u_h\|_{L_2(T)})
\\  \le & \frac{C}{\epsilon d^2} \|u_h\|_{L_2(T)}^2+\epsilon |\omega u_h|_{H^1(T)}^2.
\end{split}
\label{eq3-7}
\end{equation}

Inserting (\ref{eq3-7}) into (\ref{eq3-6}), noting that $T \cap G_2 \neq \emptyset$ implies that $T \subset G$ (since $\max_{T \cap G \neq \emptyset} h_T \le \frac{d}{4}$) and carrying out further elementary manipulations then yields that for $\epsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}
L(u_h,  \omega^2 u_h )
\\ \le   \frac{C}{\epsilon d^2}\|u_h\|_{L_2(G)}^2+ \epsilon \|\omega u_h \|_{H^1(G)}^2.
\label{eq3-8}
\end{equation}
Inserting (\ref{eq3-8} into (\ref{eq3-5}) and the result into (\ref{eq3-4}) yields
\begin{equation}
\|\omega u_h \|_{H^1(G)}^2
 \le  \frac{C}{\epsilon d^2} \|u_h\|_{L_2(G)}^2+2 \epsilon \|\omega u_h\|_{H^1(G)}^2.
\label{eq3-9}
\end{equation}
Taking $\epsilon=\frac{1}{4}$ so that we may kick back the last term above, employing the triangle inequality, and inserting the result into (\ref{eq3-4}) then completes the proof of (\ref{eq3-9-b}).
\end{proof}

We now prove a local energy error estimate.  In our proof below we shall follow \cite{NS74} by using a local finite element projection in order to split the finite element error into an approximation error and a ``discrete harmonic'' term which may be bounded using Lemma \ref{lem3-1}.  We note, however, that the use of a local finite element projection is not necessary, and our final local error estimate may in fact be proved with some simple modifications to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem3-1} above.  These two styles of proof are essentially equivalent.  Local finite element projections have been used for example in \cite{NS74}, \cite{SW77}, \cite{SW95}, and \cite{AL95} in order to prove local a priori error estimates.  The methodology of Lemma \ref{lem3-1} in which no local projections are used has been employed in for example \cite{De04b} and \cite{Guz06} in order to prove local a priori error estimates and in \cite{LN03} and \cite{Dem07} in order to prove local a posteriori error estimates.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t3-3}
Let $G_0 \subset G \subset \Omega_0$ be given, and let $dist(G_0, \partial G \setminus \partial \Omega)=d$ with $d \le \min\{2 d_0, d_1\}$ where $d_0$ is the parameter defined in the assumption R1 and $d_1$ is defined in Remark \ref{rem3-1}.  Let also A1, A2, and A3 hold with $\tilde{d}=\frac{d}{16}$.  In addition let $\max_{T \cap G \neq \emptyset} \frac{h_T}{d} \le \frac{1}{16}$.  Then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\|u-u_h\|_{H^1(G_0)} \le & C \min_{u_h -\chi \in S_{D,0} } (\|u-\chi\|_{H^1(G)}+\frac{1}{d} \|u-\chi\|_{L_2(G)})
\\&+C \frac{1}{d} \|u-u_h\|_{L_2(G)}.
\label{eq3-12}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here $C$ depends only on the constant $C$ in (\ref{eq2-2}) and the coefficients of $L$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We assume that $G_0$ is the intersection of a ball $B_{\frac{d}{2}}$ of radius $\frac{d}{2}$ with $\Omega_0$; the general case may be proved using a covering argument.  Let $G_1$ be the intersection with $\Omega_0$ of a ball having the same center as $G_0$ and having radius $\frac{3d}{4}$, and without loss of generality let $G$ be the corresponding ball of radius $d$.  Let then $\omega \in C_0^\infty(G)$ be a cutoff function which is $1$ on $G_1$ and which satisfies $\|\omega\|_{W_\infty^j(G)} \le Cd^{-j}$, $0 \le j \le r$.  Note that we may apply Lemma \ref{lem3-1} with $G_0$ on the left hand side of the estimate (\ref{eq3-9-b}) and $G_1$ on the right hand side.

Next we let $P(\omega u)$ be a local finite element projection of $\omega u$.  In particular, we let $P(\omega u) \in S_D \cap H_<^1(G)$ with $u_h-P(\omega u) =0 $ on $\Gamma_D \cap \partial G_1$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
L(\omega u-P(\omega u), v_h)=0, ~ v_h \in S_{D,0} \cap H_<^1(G).
\label{eq3-13}
\end{equation}
The local coercivity condition (\ref{eq3-2-1}) then implies the stability estimate
\begin{equation}
\|P(\omega u)\|_{H^1(G)} \le C \|\omega u \|_{H^1(G)}.
\label{eq3-14}
\end{equation}

Recalling that $u_h-P(\omega u)=0$ on $\Gamma_D \cap \partial G_1$ while employing (\ref{eq3-9-b}) and using (\ref{eq3-2-1a}) while recalling that $\omega \equiv 1$ on $G_1$, we compute that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\|u-u_h&\|_{H^1(G_0)}   \le \|\omega u- P(\omega u)\|_{H^1(G_0)}+\|P(\omega u)-u_h\|_{H^1(G_0)}
\\ \le  & \|\omega u-P(\omega u)\|_{H^1(G)}+\frac{C}{d}\|P(\omega u)-u_h\|_{L_2(G_1)}
\\ \le & \|\omega u-P(\omega u)\|_{H^1(G)}+\frac{C}{d}(\|P(\omega u)-\omega u\|_{L_2(G_1)}+\|u-u_h\|_{L_2(G_1)})
\\ \le & C \|\omega u-P(\omega u)\|_{H^1(G)}+\frac{C}{d} \|u-u_h\|_{L_2(G_1)}.
\label{eq3-16}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Next we employing the triangle inequality along with (\ref{eq3-14}) while recalling that $\|\omega \|_{W_\infty^j(G_2)} \le Cd^{-j}$ in order to find that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\|\omega u-P(\omega u)\|_{H^1(G)} \le & C \|\omega u\|_{H^1(G)}
\\ \le & C(\|u\|_{H^1(G)}+\frac{1}{d} \|u\|_{L_2(G)}).
\end{split}
\label{eq3-17}
\end{equation}

In order to complete the proof of (\ref{eq3-12}), we first insert (\ref{eq3-17}) into (\ref{eq3-16}) and finally write $u-u_h=(u-\chi)+(\chi-u_h)$ with $u_h-\chi \in S_{D,0}$.

\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
  \href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}


On the minimum value of the condition number of polynomials

Abstract: In 1993, Shub and Smale posed the problem of finding a sequence of univariate polynomials of degree $N$ with condition number bounded above by $N$. In a previous paper by C. Beltán, U. Etayo, J. Marzo and J. Ortega-Cerdà, it was proved that the optimal value of the condition number is of the form $O(\sqrt{N})$, and the sequence demanded by Shub and Smale was described by a closed formula (for large enough $N\geqslant N_0$ with $N_0$ unknown) and by a search algorithm for the rest of the cases. In this paper we find concrete estimates for the constant hidden in the $O(\sqrt{N})$ term and we describe a simple formula for a sequence of polynomials whose condition number is at most $N$, valid for all $N=4M^2$, with $M$ a positive integer.

\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Statement of the main problem}
The condition number of a polynomial at a root is a measure for the first order variation of the root under small perturbations of the polynomial. It has different formulas and properties depending on how these changes are measured, see for example \cite{Demmel,TB}. Among the most popular and useful definitions is the one given by Shub and Smale in \cite{SS93I,SS93III}, where polynomials are first homogenized (hence the zeros lie in $\mathbb P(\mathbb{C}^2)$) and Bombieri norm is used to measure the perturbation of the polynomial. The concrete definition of Shub and Smale's {\em normalized condition number} $\mu_{\text{norm}}$ and some of its properties are recalled in a later section.

In \cite{SS93II,SS93III} it was proved that with probability at least $1/2$, (a certain choice of) random polynomials have condition number at most $N$, leading to the following:

\begin{problem}[Main Problem in \cite{SS93III}]\label{Prob_cond}
Find explicitly a family of polynomials of degree $N$ whose condition number is at most $N$.
\end{problem}
(The authors of \cite{SS93III} also relaxed the problem changing ``at most $N$'' to ``at most $N^c$ for any constant $c$, say $c=100$''.) By ``find explicitely'' they mean ``giving a handy description'' or describing a BSS algorithm --that essentially means an algorithm where exact real arithmetic is available, see \cite{BlCuShSm98}-- to solve the problem. During his plenary conference at the FoCM'14 meeting in Montevideo, Shub referred to this question as ``finding hay in the haystack'', since we know that a lot of such polynomials exist but it just turned out to be quite difficult to describe one!

The motivation of Shub and Smale was the search of a good starting polynomial to be used in homotopy methods for polynomial root finding, that is the one--dimensional case of Smale's 17th problem. Smale's 17th was finally solved without finding the solution to Problem \ref{Prob_cond} nor its high--dimensional analogous, see \cite{BP, BuCu, Lairez} or the monograph \cite{BuCubook}, leaving these questions open (see the Open Problems section in \cite{BuCubook}). Problem \ref{Prob_cond} was finally solved in \cite{BEMO19} where it was proved that:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item There exists a constant $a>0$ such that the condition number of any degree $N$ polynomial is at least $a\sqrt{N}$.
  \item There exist an explicit construction of a polynomial of any degree, given by its zeros, and a constant $b>0$ such that the condition number of the $N$--th degree polynomial is at most $b\sqrt{N}$.
  \end{enumerate}
   From \cite{Ujue} we have the concrete value $a\geqslant e^{C_{\log}}/2$ where $C_{\log}$ is defined by \eqref{eq:Clog} and bounded in \eqref{eq:Clogbound}, but the value of $b$ is not known. As a consequence, one gets an algorithm to generate a degree $N$ polynomial whose condition number is at most $N$: run in parallel a search algorithm (based on enumeration of rational zeros) and the sequence of item (2). Since computing the condition number given the zeros is immediate, and since the polynomials in the sequence of (2) eventually have a condition number smaller than $N$, this produces a polynomial time algorithm for Problem \ref{Prob_cond}.

The solution of \cite{BEMO19} is thus an algorithm to generate the demanded sequence, and it certainly solves Problem \ref{Prob_cond}, but it leaves an open question behind:
\begin{problem}[Main Problem after \cite{BEMO19}]\label{Prob_cond2}
Find an explicit formula for a family of polynomials of degree $N$ whose condition number is at most $N$. Also, find asymptotic bounds for the minimum condition number of a degree $N$ polynomial, $N\to\infty$.
\end{problem}
\subsection{Main result}
In these pages we make some partial progress in Problem \ref{Prob_cond2}. More exactly, we prove for the first part of this problem:
\begin{theorem}[Main result]\label{th:mainintro}
Let $N=4M^2,$ with $M\geqslant 1$ a positive integer. Define
\begin{equation*}
r_j=4j, \quad h_j=1-\frac{4j^2}{N},
\end{equation*}
for $1\leqslant j \leqslant M$ and consider the polynomial of degree $N$ given by
\begin{equation*}
P_N(z)=\displaystyle(z^{r_M}-1)\prod_{j=1}^{M-1}(z^{r_j}-\rho(h_j)^{r_j})(z^{r_j}-\rho(h_j)^{-r_j}),
\end{equation*}
where $\rho(x)=\sqrt{\frac{1+x}{1-x}}$. Then $\mu_{\text{norm}}(P_N)\leqslant \min(N,(19/2)\sqrt{N+1})$.
\end{theorem}
The first three polynomials of our sequence can be seen in Table \ref{table:tabla_poly}.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
$M$ & $N$ & Polynomial  \\
\hline \hline
1 & 4  &	$z^4-1$		\\ \hline
2 & 16 &	$(z^8-1)(z^4-49)(z^4-1/49)$		\\ \hline
3 & 36 &	$(z^{12}-1)(z^8-2401/16)(z^8-16/2401)(z^4-289)(z^4-1/289)$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The first three polynomials of the sequence constructed in Theorem \ref{th:mainintro} corresponding to degrees 4, 16 and 36, respectively.}
\label{table:tabla_poly}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The zeros of above polynomial $P_N$ correspond, under the stereographic projection, to the spherical points of a set $\mathcal{P}_N$ described in Section \ref{Sect:PN}.
Modifying $\mathcal P_N$ slightly, one can very likely adapt our proof to similar subsequences such as, say, $N=4M^2+1$ or $N=4M^2+2M$, but solving the problem for general $N$ is still out of reach, since the explicit computations become too complicated.

Our method of proof also produces the upper bound in the following corollary, which is a first answer to the second part of Problem \ref{Prob_cond2} (the lower bound is proved by U. Etayo in \cite{Ujue} and uses a recent result by S. Steinerberger \cite{Stefan}):
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:limsinf}
The minimum condition number $\alpha_N=\inf\{\mu_{\text norm}(P):deg(P)=N\}$ of a degree $N$ polynomial satisfies
\[
0.454\ldots\leqslant \frac{e^{C_{\log}}}2\leqslant \liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{\alpha_N}{\sqrt{N}}\leqslant \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}e^{15/8}=5.647\ldots
\]
\end{corollary}

A related problem of great importance is that of finding the optimal constant $C_N$ in the multiterm Bombieri inequality
\[
\prod_{i=1}^N{\|z-z_i\|}\leqslant C_N \left\|\prod_{i=1}^N(z-z_i)\right\|,
\]
which compares the Bombieri-Weyl norm of a polynomial and the product of the norms of its linear factors. Finding the optimal value of $C_N$ is a formidable challenge! A recent breackthrough by U. Etayo \cite{Ujue} is that the optimal value of this constant is essentially $\sqrt{e^N/(N+1)}$. More precisely, define $K_N$ by
\[
C_N=K_N\sqrt{\frac{e^N}{N+1}}.
\]
Then, we have $\alpha\leqslant K_N\leqslant 1$ for some $\alpha>0$ which is independent of $N$. No lower bounds on $\alpha$ are known till now, but from \cite[Th. 4.5]{Ujue} and our main result above we deduce:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:KN}
\limsup_{N\to\infty}K_N\geqslant \frac{e^{C_{\log}}}{\sqrt{3}e^{15/8}}\geqslant 0.08.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Relation to well--distributed spherical points and the logarithmic energy}
We will define our sequence of polynomials by its zeros, which are in turn seen as points in the unit $2$--sphere $\mathbb{S}$ via the stereographic projection. It was noted in \cite{SS93III} that if a collection of spherical points $ p_1,\ldots,  p_N\in\mathbb{S}$ is very well distributed in the sense that it quasi--minimizes the logarithmic energy
\begin{equation}\label{Logarithmic_energy}
\mathcal{E}( p_1,\ldots,  p_N)=\displaystyle\sum_{i \neq j} \log\frac{1}{| p_i- p_j|},
\end{equation}
then the associated complex points are the zeros of a well--conditioned polynomial. More precisely, let us denote by $m_N$ the minimum possible value of the logarithmic energy,
$$
m_N=\min_{ p_1,\ldots,  p_N\in\mathbb{S}}\mathcal{E}( p_1,\ldots,  p_N).
$$
The main result of \cite{SS93III} is that if $\mathcal{E}( p_1,\ldots,  p_N)\leqslant m_N+c\log N$ then the condition number of the corresponding polynomial is at most $\sqrt{N^{1+c}(N+1)}$, thus solving the relaxation of Problem \ref{Prob_cond}. (Note that our notation is slightly different from that of \cite{SS93III}: we use the unit sphere instead of the Riemann sphere and our definition of the log--energy ranges over $i\neq j$ instead of $i<j$. Our notation is the most frequent nowadays).

Inspired by this result, Shub and Smale posed the problem of finding collections of spherical points with quasioptimal $\log$--energy. This later was included in Smale's famous list of Problems for the XXI century  \cite{Smale2000}:
\begin{problem}[Smale's 7th Problem]\label{Prob7_Smale}
Can one find $ p_1,\ldots,  p_N\in\mathbb{S}$ such that $\mathcal{E}( p_1,\ldots,  p_N) \leqslant  m_N+c\log N$ for some universal constant $c$?
\end{problem}
The value of $m_N$ is not still well known. After \cite{Wagner89,RSZ94,Dubickas96,Brauchart08,BS18}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Clog}
m_N=\kappa N^2-\frac{1}{2}N\textrm{log}N+C_{\log}N+o(N),
\end{equation}
where $C_{\log}$ is a constant and, denoting by $d\sigma$ the normalized uniform measure in $\mathbb S$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:continuousenergy}
\kappa=\int_{x,y\in\mathbb{S}}\log\frac{1}{|x-y|}d\sigma(x)d\sigma(y)=\frac{1}{2}-\log 2<0,
\end{equation}
is the continuous energy. From \cite{Stefan} and \cite{BS18}, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Clogbound}
-0.0954\ldots \leqslant C_{\log} \leqslant 2\log2 +\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{2}{3}+3\log\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\Gamma(1/3)}=-0.0556\ldots
\end{equation}
The upper bound has been conjectured to be an equality, see \cite{BHS12,BS18} and the monograph \cite{BHS19} for context.
We stress that our construction of the point set for Theorem \ref{th:mainintro} does not solve Problem \ref{Prob7_Smale}: its log--energy is of the form $\kappa N^2-\frac12N\log N+O(N)$ (this can be deduced directly from \eqref{Logarithmic_energy} and Corollary \ref{cor:D} or seen as a consequence of \cite[Th. 1.5]{Ujue}).

\subsection{Condition number of polynomials}

We now give the precise definition and some properties of the condition number of polynomials. Let us consider a bivariate homogeneous polynomial with complex coefficients of degree $N\geqslant 1$,
\begin{equation*}
h(x,y)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^N a_ix^iy^{N-i}, \quad a_i\in\mathbb{C}, \,\, a_N\neq 0.
\end{equation*}
The zeros of $h$ lie in the complex projective space $\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{C}^2)$.
Following \cite{SS93I}, the normalized condition number of $h$ at a zero $\zeta\in\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{C}^2)$ is
\begin{equation*}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(h,\zeta)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
N^{1/2}\|(Dh(\zeta)|_{\zeta^{\perp}})^{-1}\|\|h\|\|\zeta\|^{N-1}, \quad &\text{if }\, \exists (Dh(\zeta)|_{\zeta^{\perp}})^{-1},\\
+\infty, \quad &\text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Here, $Dh(\zeta)|_{\zeta^{\perp}}$ is the restriction of the derivative $Dh(\zeta)=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}h\quad \frac{\partial}{\partial y}h\right)_{(x,y)=\zeta}$ to the orthogonal complement of  $\zeta$ in $\mathbb{C}^2$, and $\|h\|$ is the Bombieri-Weyl norm (also known as Kostlan or Bombieri or Weyl norm) of $h$, defined as
\begin{equation*}
\|h\|= \left(\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^N {N \choose i}^{-1} |a_i|^2\right)^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
If $\zeta$ is a double root of $h$, then by definition $\mu_{\text{norm}}(h,\zeta)=\infty$.
On the other hand, if there is not mention to a concrete root of $h$, then we define
\begin{equation*}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(h)=\max_{\zeta\in \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{C}^2):h(\zeta)=0}\mu_{\text{norm}}(h,\zeta).
\end{equation*}
Let
\begin{equation*}
f(z)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^N a_iz^i, \quad a_N\neq 0,
\end{equation*}
be an univariate polynomial of degree $N$ with complex coefficients and $z\in\mathbb{C}$ a zero of
$f$. Consider the homogeneous counterpart of $f$,
\begin{equation*}
h(x,y)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^N a_ix^iy^{N-i},
\end{equation*}
and define
\begin{equation*}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(f,z)=\mu_{\text{norm}}(h,(z,1)), \quad \mu_{\text{norm}}(f)=\max_{z\in\mathbb{C}:f(z)=0}\mu_{\text{norm}}(f,z).
\end{equation*}
Taking $\|f\|=\|h\|$ and expanding the derivative, it turns out that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mu}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(f,z)=\frac{N^{1/2}(1+|z|^2)^{\frac{N-2}{2}}}{|f'(z)|}\|f\|,
\end{equation}
which allows us to easily compute the condition number for simple cases (see \cite{Beltran15} for an elementary proof of this last formula).

\subsection{An alternative formula for the condition number and idea of our proof}
Since a polynomial is (up to a multiplicative constant) defined by its zeros and these can be seen as spherical points, one can aim to give a formula for the condition number of a polynomial that depends uniquely on the associated spherical points. Shub and Smale accomplished this task. Adapting the notation of \cite{SS93III} to ours, we have:
\begin{prop}
Let $P(z)=\prod_{i=1}^N(z-z_i)$ be a polynomial and denote by $ p_i$ the point in $\mathbb{S}$
obtained from the inverse stereographic projection of each $z_i$. Then the condition number of $P$ equals
\begin{equation}\label{exp_cond_S2}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(P)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{N(N+1)}\max_{1 \leqslant i \leqslant N}\frac{\left(\int_{\mathbb{S}} \prod_{j=1}^N |p- p_j|^2 d\sigma(p)\right)^{1/2}}{\prod_{j\neq i}| p_i- p_j|}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
As in \cite{BEMO19}, we will start from a geometrical construction of a point set $\mathcal P_N$ (see Figure \ref{fig:construction} for a graphical description). Its main features are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The $N$ spherical points are distributed in $2M-1$ parallels of varying height in the sphere, with the $M$--th parallel being the equator.
\item The parallel at height $h_j$ contains $r_j$ points which are (up to a homotety and a traslation) a set of $r_j$ roots of the unity. They may have a phase or not, this is not important for our proof.
\item The values of $h_j$ are chosen in such a way that there is a {\em band} of relative area $r_j/N$ whose central height is $h_j$.
\item The construction is equatorially symmetric: $h_j=-h_{2M-j}$ and $r_j=r_{2M-j}$.
\end{enumerate}
 Once we have defined our set of points, in order to prove our main result we proceed as follows:
 \begin{enumerate}
\item[(A)] Given any $q\in\mathbb S$ and any band $B$ in the sphere, we consider the central parallel $Q$ of $B$, and we compare the integral $I_B$ of $\log|p-q|$ when $p$ lies in the band with the expected value $\Tilde{I}_{Q}$ of the same function when $p$ lies in $Q$. We conclude that $I_B\approx \nu(B) \Tilde{I}_Q$ where $\nu(B)$ is the normalized area of $B$.
\item[(B)] Given any $q\in\mathbb S$, we divide the integral $I=-\kappa$ of $\log|p-q|$ with $p\in\mathbb S$ in the different bands associated to our point set. From (A), the value $I_j$ in each band $B_j$ is similar to $\nu(B_j)\Tilde{I}_j $ where $\Tilde{I}_j $ is the expected value of the function along the parallel $Q_j$, that is $I_j\approx (r_j/N)\Tilde{I}_j $ and $-\kappa N=I N=N\sum_j I_j\approx \sum_j r_j\Tilde I_j$. The difference between $-\kappa N$ and $\sum_j r_j\Tilde{I}_j$ turns out to be rather small except if $q$ is too close to the poles.
\item[(C)] We then compare the value of $r_j \Tilde{I}_j $ with that of $\sum_{k=0}^{r_j-1}\log|q-p_{j,k}|$ where the $p_{j,k}$ are the $r_j$ points in the corresponding parallel. Both quantities are again very similar (except for the parallel which is the one closest to $q$, where the discrete sum can diverge to $-\infty$). From this, we get
    \[
    \prod_{i=1}^n|q-p_i|=e^{\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}\sum_{k=0}^{r_j-1}\log|q-p_{j,k}|}\lesssim e^{\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}r_j \Tilde{I}_j}\approx e^{-\kappa N}.
    \]
     This essentially gives an upper bound for the numerator in \eqref{exp_cond_S2}, once the details are settled.
\item[(D)] The same kind of argument, using also that our point set is well--separated, produces a lower bound $\prod_{j\neq i}|p_i-p_j|\gtrsim \sqrt{N}e^{-N\kappa}$, valid for all fixed $i$, for the denominator of \eqref{exp_cond_S2}. This almost finishes the proof of our main result.
 \end{enumerate}
 This procedure is similar to that of \cite{BEMO19}, but in this paper all the appearances of $\approx, \lesssim,\gtrsim$ are estimated with concrete constants. One benefit that we get is that our point set is more simple, since in \cite{BEMO19} the points need to be distributed in the parallels of height $h_j$ but also a part of them is sent to the parallels delimiting the spherical bands, while we only need to allocate points in the central parallels.
 \begin{remark}
  The construction in \cite{BEMO19} has a property that ours does not: the associated discrete measure can be used to approximate the continuous integral of $\log|p-q|$ up to a constant order for any fixed $q$. This property (which is the reason to send part of the points to the parallels delimiting the bands) is a key point in the proof of the main result of \cite{BEMO19}. Our construction only gets this if $q$ is not too close to the north and south poles, yet we are able to prove our main theorem from this weaker property.
 \end{remark}

\subsection*{Organization of the paper}
In the next section, we state the construction of the set of spherical points which will be, under the stereographic projection, the zeros of the sequence of well--conditioned polynomials. In Section \ref{sec:comparison} we prove (A); in Section \ref{sec:Proof1} we prove (B); sections \ref{sec:numerador} and \ref{sec:denominador} are devoted to proving (C) and (D) respectively. Finally, the main result is proved in Section \ref{sec:final}.

\section{Geometrical description of the set of points $\mathcal{P}_{N}$ in $\mathbb{S}$}\label{Sect:PN}

We now construct our set of points $\mathcal{P}_N=\{p_1,\ldots,p_N\}$ in $\mathbb{S}$. We denote by $Q_h$ the parallel of height $h$,
\begin{equation*}
Q_h=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{S} : z=h\}, \quad -1\leqslant h \leqslant 1.
\end{equation*}

Let $M$ be a positive integer, define $N=4M^2$, and let
\begin{equation*}
r_j=\begin{cases}4j, &1\leqslant j\leqslant M,\\4(2M-j), &M\leqslant j\leqslant 2M-1,\end{cases}
\quad
h_j=\begin{cases}1-\frac{j^2}{M^2}, &1\leqslant j\leqslant M, \\-1+\frac{(2M-j)^2}{M^2}, &M\leqslant j\leqslant 2M-1.\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Note that $N=r_1+\cdots+r_{2M-1}$ and the claimed symmetric properties $r_j=r_{2M-j}$, $h_j=-h_{2M-j}$, and note also that $h_M=0$. Our point set is constructed by taking $r_j$ equally spaced points in each of the parallels $Q_j=Q_{h_j}$. We will refer to $Q_j$ just as the $j$--th parallel.
For all $1 \leqslant j \leqslant 2M-1$, we define the $j$--th band as
\begin{equation*}
B_j=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{S}, \,H_j \leqslant z \leqslant H_{j-1}\},
\end{equation*}
being
\begin{equation}\label{frontera_banda}
H_j=\begin{cases}1-\frac{j(j+1)}{M^2}, & 0 \leqslant j \leqslant M-1,\\-1+\frac{(2M-j-1)(2M-j)}{M^2}, &M\leqslant j\leqslant 2M-1.\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Observe that $Q_j$ is the central parallel of the band $B_j$, in the sense that
\begin{equation*}
h_j=\frac{H_{j-1}+H_j}{2}=H_{j-1}-\frac{r_j}{N}=H_j+\frac{r_j}{N},\quad 1\leqslant j \leqslant 2M-1.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, note that $B_1$ and $B_{2M-1}$ are just two spherical caps surrounding the north and the south pole respectively and that  $\mathbb{S}= \displaystyle\cup_{j=1}^{2M-1}B_{j}$. The relative area of each band is (use for example Lemma \ref{int_S2}):
\begin{equation*}
\nu(B_j)=\frac{H_{j-1}-H_j}{2}=\frac{r_j}{N}, \quad 1\leqslant j \leqslant 2M-1.
\end{equation*}
See Figure \ref{fig:construction} for a graphical illustration of this construction.
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Imagen.png}
  \caption{Our construction of spherical points for $M=3$, that is $N=36$ points, from three different points of view (left: tilted; center: equatorial; right: north pole). The parallels $Q_j$ are the black circles, and the points are equidistributed among them. The red lines are the parallels $Q_{H_j}$ which delimit the bands (the north and south poles are marked with red dots and correspond to $H_0$ and $H_{2M-1}$, but they do not belong in $\mathcal P_N$.)}\label{fig:construction}
\end{figure}

\section{Comparison of the integrals in parallels and bands}\label{sec:comparison}
This section provides a comparison tool which is independent of the construction above. It will later be applied to each of the bands $B_j$ described in Section \ref{Sect:PN}.
Let $B$ be the band contained between parallels of height $h-\epsilon$ and $h+\epsilon$, with $Q=Q_h$ the central parallel. The relative area of $B$ is $\epsilon$.
We now show that, for any {\em fixed} $q=(a,b,c)\in\mathbb S$, the integral $I_B(q)$ of $\log|p-q|$ with $p$ chosen in $B$ is approximately equal to the relative area of the band, times the expected value $\Tilde I_Q(q)$ of the same function in the central parallel. From \cite[Prop. 2.2]{Diamond}, for the parallel of height $t\in[-1,1]$ the expected value $\Tilde I_{Q_t}(q)$ satisfies

\begin{equation}\label{Valor_fp(h)}
\Tilde I_{Q_t}(q)=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}(\log(1+t)+\log(1-c)), \quad &\mathrm{if }\,\, t \geqslant c,\\
&\\
\frac{1}{2}(\log(1-t)+\log(1+c)), \quad &\mathrm{if }\,\, t <c.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
From Lemma \ref{int_S2} we have
\begin{equation}\label{rel1}
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}I_B(q)=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{p\in B}\log|q-p|d\sigma(p)=\frac{1}{2\varepsilon}\int_{h-\varepsilon}^{h+\varepsilon}\Tilde I_{Q_t}(q)dt.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}[Comparison when $q$ is outside of the band]\label{lem:nuevocotaptomedio}
With the notations above, if $c\geqslant h+\varepsilon$ we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:nueva}
 0\leqslant \Tilde I_{Q}(q)-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}I_B(q)
-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{12(1-h)^2}&=\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
\frac{\varepsilon^{2n}}{4n(2n+1)(1-h)^{2n}}\\
\nonumber & \leqslant \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\frac{\varepsilon^{4}}{(1-h)^{4}},
\end{align}
and if $c\leqslant h-\varepsilon$ we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:nueva2}
0\leqslant \Tilde I_{Q}(q)-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}I_B(q)
-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{12(1+h)^2}&=\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
\frac{\varepsilon^{2n}}{4n(2n+1)(1+h)^{2n}}\\
\nonumber & \leqslant \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\frac{\varepsilon^{4}}{(1+h)^{4}}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Assume first that $c\geqslant h+\varepsilon$. Let $U$ be the right hand term in \eqref{eq:nueva}. Then,
\begin{align*}
U=&\frac12\log(1-h)-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\int_{-\varepsilon}^\varepsilon \log(1-h+t)\,dt-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{12(1-h)^2}\\
=&-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}
\int_{-\varepsilon}^{\varepsilon}\log\left(1+\frac{t}{1-h}\right)\,dt
-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{12(1-h)^2}\\
=&-\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\int_{-\varepsilon}^\varepsilon
\frac{(-1)^{n+1}t^n}{n(1-h)^n}\,dt-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{12(1-h)^2}.
\end{align*}
The terms with odd $n$ in the sum integrate to $0$ and hence we have
\begin{align*}
U=&\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{\varepsilon^{2n}}{4n(2n+1)(1-h)^{2n}}-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{12(1-h)^2}
=\sum_{n=2}^\infty
\frac{\varepsilon^{2n}}{4n(2n+1)(1-h)^{2n}},
\end{align*}
as wanted. The final inequality follows from noting that $\varepsilon/(1-h)\leqslant 1$ and computing the sum (\cite[(0.234.8)]{GR15}). The other case ($c\leqslant h-\varepsilon$) is proved the same way.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[Comparison when $q$ is inside of the band]\label{comp_paral_band_p}
With the notations above, assume now that $h-\varepsilon \leqslant c \leqslant h+\varepsilon.$ Then,
\begin{equation}
-\frac{\varepsilon/4}{1-h^2}\leqslant  \Tilde I_{Q}(q)-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}I_{B}(q)\leqslant
\begin{cases}\frac{(1-\log 2)\varepsilon^2}{2(1-h)^2},&h\leqslant c\leqslant h+\varepsilon,\\
\frac{(1-\log 2)\varepsilon^2}{2(1+h)^2},&h-\varepsilon\leqslant c\leqslant h.\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Assume first that $c\in[h,h+\varepsilon]$, and define
\begin{align*}
U(c)=&\Tilde I_{Q}(q)-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
I_{B}(q)\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\log(1-h)+\frac12\log(1+c)-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\int_{h-\varepsilon}^c\log(1-t)+\log(1+c)\,dt
\\&-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\int_c^{h+\varepsilon}\log(1+t)+\log(1-c)\,dt.
\end{align*}
With some little arithmetic it is easy to see that
\[
U'(c)=\frac{h+\varepsilon-c}{\varepsilon(2-2c^2)}\geqslant 0.
\]
The maximum and the minimum of $U$ in the interval $c\in[h,h+\varepsilon]$ are thus in the extremes. The case $c=h+\varepsilon$ is covered by \eqref{eq:nueva}, which (using $\varepsilon/(1-h)\leqslant 1$) yields:
\begin{equation*}
U(c)\leqslant U(h+\varepsilon)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{\varepsilon^{2n}}{4n(2n+1)(1-h)^{2n}}\leqslant \frac{\varepsilon^2}{(1-h)^2}\frac14\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{1}{n(2n+1)},
\end{equation*}
and again from \cite[(0.234.8)]{GR15} we obtain the result.
For the minimum, we have
\begin{align*}
U(c)\geqslant U(h)=&\frac14(\log(1-h)+\log(1+h))-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\left(\int_{h-\varepsilon}^h\log(1-t)\,dt+\int_h^{h+\varepsilon}\log(1+t)\,dt\right)\\
=&-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\left(\int_{h-\varepsilon}^h\log\left(1+\frac{h-t}{1-h}\right)\,dt+\int_h^{h+\varepsilon}\log\left(1+\frac{t-h}{1+h}\right)\,dt\right)
\\
=&-\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}\left(\int_0^{\varepsilon}\log\left(1+\frac{t}{1-h}\right)\,dt+\int_0^{\varepsilon}\log\left(1+\frac{t}{1+h}\right)\,dt\right).
\end{align*}
Expanding the logarithms in power series and integrating termwise we get
\begin{align*}
U(c)\geqslant U(h)=&\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n= 1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n\varepsilon^n}{n(n+1)}\frac{1}{(1-h)^n}+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{n= 1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n\varepsilon^n}{n(n+1)}\frac{1}{(1+h)^n},
\end{align*}
and since $\varepsilon/(1-h)$ and $\varepsilon/(1+h)$ are both at most equal to $1$ we see that both alternating series have decreasing terms, thus concluding:
\[
U(c)\geqslant U(h)\geqslant-\frac{\epsilon}{8(1-h)}-\frac{\epsilon}{8(1+h)}=-\frac{\epsilon/4}{1-h^2},
\]
and the lemma follows. The other case ($c\in[h-\varepsilon,h]$) is done the same way.
\end{proof}

\section{Comparison between $-\kappa N$ and $\sum_j r_j\Tilde{I}_j $}\label{sec:Proof1}
 Recall that:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $I_j(q)$ is the integral of $\log|p-q|$ when $p$ lies in the $j$--th band $B_j$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kap}
-\kappa=\int_{\mathbb S}\log|p-q|\,d\sigma(p)=\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}I_j(q),\quad q\in\mathbb S.
\end{equation}
  \item $\Tilde{I}_j (q)$ is the expected value of $\log|p-q|$ when $p$ lies in the $j$--th parallel $Q_j$.  From \eqref{Valor_fp(h)} we have
      \begin{equation}\label{Valor_Itildej}
\Tilde{I}_j (q)=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}(\log(1+h_j)+\log(1-c)), \quad &\mathrm{if }\,\, h_j \geqslant c,\\
&\\
\frac{1}{2}(\log(1-h_j)+\log(1+c)), \quad &\mathrm{if }\,\, h_j <c.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The results in Section \ref{sec:comparison} yield $N I_j(q)\approx r_j\Tilde{I}_j(q)$ where the meaning of $\approx$ is precise and has different bounds for $q$ outside and inside of the band $B_j$.

\begin{lemma}\label{const_cond}
Let  $q=(a,b,c)\in B_\ell\subseteq \mathbb{S}$ with $\ell\leqslant M$ and $M\geqslant 5$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{Sum_SN}
S_N=S_N(q)=\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1} r_j\Tilde{I}_j (q).
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation*}
-1\leqslant S_N +  N\kappa-T(\ell)\leqslant \frac{2(1-\log 2)}{\ell}+\frac{1}{15},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:T}
T(\ell)=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\frac{r_j^3}{12N^2(1+h_j)^2}+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\frac{r_j^3}{12N^2(1-h_j)^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\begin{align*}
(\star)=&\,S_N + N\kappa-T(\ell)\\
\stackrel{\text{\eqref{eq:kap}}
=&\,r_\ell \left(\Tilde{I}_\ell(q)-\frac{N}{r_\ell}I_\ell(q)\right)\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}r_j\left(\Tilde{I}_j(q)-\frac{N}{r_j}I_j(q)-\frac{r_j^2}{12N^2(1+h_j)^2}\right)\\
&+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}r_j\left(\Tilde{I}_j(q)-\frac{N}{r_j}I_j(q)-\frac{r_j^2}{12N^2(1-h_j)^2}\right).
\end{align*}
From Lemmas \ref{lem:nuevocotaptomedio} (with $\varepsilon=r_j/N$) and \ref{comp_paral_band_p} (with $\varepsilon=r_\ell/N$) we have on the one hand
\[
(\star)\geqslant -\frac{ r_\ell^2}{4N(1-h_\ell^2)}=-\frac{1}{2-\frac{\ell^2}{M^2}}\geqslant -1,
\]
and on the other hand
\begin{align*}
(\star)\leqslant & \frac{(1-\log2)\,r_\ell^3}{2N^2(1-h_\ell)^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\frac{r_j^{5}}{N^4(1+h_j)^{4}}+
\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\frac{r_j^{5}}{N^4(1-h_j)^{4}}\right)\\
\leqslant &\frac{2(1-\log 2)}{\ell}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\left(2\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{r_j^{5}}{N^4(1+h_j)^{4}}+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{M}\frac{r_j^{5}}{N^4(1-h_j)^{4}}\right)\\
\leqslant &\frac{2(1-\log 2)}{\ell}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\left(8\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{j^{5}}{(2M^2-j^2)^{4}}+4\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{M}\frac{1}{j^3}\right)\\
\leqslant &\frac{2(1-\log 2)}{\ell}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\left(8 \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1} \frac{j^5}{M^8} + 4\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{j^3}\right)\\
\leqslant &\frac{2(1-\log 2)}{\ell}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5}{6}-\log2\right)\left(\frac{1}{30}+4[\zeta(3)-1]\right),
\end{align*}
where $\zeta(3)$ denotes Ap\'ery's constant. Note that we have used \cite[(0.121.5)]{GR15} and $M\geqslant 5$ to deduce
$$
8\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1} \frac{j^5}{M^8}=\frac{2(M-1)^2}{3M^5}\left(2(M-1)-\frac{1}{M}\right)\leqslant \frac1{30}.
$$
The lemma follows after some arithmetic bounding $\log 2\geqslant 0.69$ and $\zeta(3)\leqslant 1.203$.
\end{proof}
The following result offers us a lower and upper bound for $T(\ell)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:aux1}
Let $q\in B_{\ell}$ with $\ell\leqslant M$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{3}\log\frac{M+1}{\ell+1}\leqslant T(\ell) \leqslant \frac{1}{3}\log\frac{M}{\ell}+\frac{1}{6}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
From Definition \eqref{eq:T} and symmetry with respect to the equator, we have
\begin{align*}
T(\ell)=& \frac{1}{12}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\frac{r_j^3}{N^2(1+h_j)^2}+\frac{1}{12}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M \frac{r_j^3}{N^2(1-h_j)^2}+\frac{1}{12}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{r_j^3}{N^2(1+h_j)^2}\\
=& \frac{1}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\frac{j^3}{(2M^2-j^2)^2}+\dfrac{1}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j={\ell+1}}^M \frac{1}{j}+\frac{1}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{j^3}{(2M^2-j^2)^2}.
\end{align*}
Then,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M\frac{1}{j}\leqslant T(\ell) \leqslant
\frac{1}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M \frac{1}{j} +\frac{2}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{j^3}{(2M^2-j^2)^2}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $\sum_{j={\ell+1}}^M \frac{1}{j}$ vanishes for $\ell=M$.
The result follows from the following two bounds: on the one hand
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{j^3}{(2M^2-j^2)^2} \leqslant \frac{2}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\frac{j^3}{M^4}=\frac{(M-1)^2}{6M^2} \leqslant \frac{1}{6},
\end{equation*}
and on the other hand, from Lemma \ref{lem:sumalog} we have
\[
\frac{1}{3}\log\frac{M+1}{\ell+1}<\frac{1}{3}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M \frac{1}{j}<\frac{1}{3}\log\frac{M}{\ell},
\]
and the proof is concluded.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{Cociente_Integral_cond_previo}
Let $q\in B_{\ell}$ with $\ell\leqslant M$ and $M \geqslant 5$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
-1\leqslant -1+\frac13\log \frac{M+1}{\ell+1}\leqslant S_N+N\kappa \leqslant \frac13\log \frac{M}{\ell}+\frac{2(1-\log 2)}{\ell}+\frac{1}{4}.
\end{equation*}
In other words, $-N\kappa\approx \sum_j r_j\Tilde I_j(q)$ where the symbol $\approx$ hides essentially $\frac13\log\frac M\ell$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Immediate from lemmas \ref{const_cond} and \ref{lem:aux1}.
\end{proof}

\section{The numerator of the condition number formula}\label{sec:numerador}
This section is devoted to get a upper bound for the term
\begin{equation*}
\log\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^N |p-p_i| - S_N,
\end{equation*}
with $S_N=S_N(p)$ the discrete sum defined in \eqref{Sum_SN}, thus producing an upper bound for the numerator in \eqref{exp_cond_S2}. We need some technical lemmata.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:int}
Given $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\varphi \in [0,2\pi/r]$, we have
\[
\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\left(x^2+y^2-2xy\cos\left(\varphi+\frac{2\pi i}{r}\right)\right)=x^{2r}+y^{2r}-2x^ry^r\cos(r\varphi).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[eq. 1.394]{GR15}.
\end{proof}
Next we are going to give an exact expression for the quantity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
\Theta=\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}|p-q_i|^2,
\end{equation}
where $p=(\sqrt{1-c^2},0,c)$ is a spherical point and $q_0,\ldots, q_{r-1}$ are $r$ equidistributed points in the parallel of height $h$, that is
\[
q_i=\left(\sqrt{1-h^2}\cos\left(\varphi+\frac{2\pi i}{r}\right),\sqrt{1-h^2}\sin\left(\varphi+\frac{2\pi i}{r}\right),h\right),
\]
with $\varphi\in[0,2\pi/r]$ any phase representing that the points can be in any position.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:xey}
We have $\Theta=x^{2r}+y^{2r}-2x^ry^r\cos(r\varphi)$, where
\begin{align*}
x=&\sqrt{1-c}\sqrt{1+h},\\
y=&\sqrt{1+c}\sqrt{1-h}.
\end{align*}
In particular, the minimum and maximum of $\Theta$ are reached respectively in $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi=\pi/r$ and we get
\[
 |x^r-y^r|^2 \leqslant \Theta\leqslant |x^r+y^r|^2.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We write
\begin{align*}
\Theta=&\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}|p-q_i|^2\\
=&\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}(2-2\langle p,q_i\rangle)\\
=&\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\left(2-2\sqrt{1-h^2}\sqrt{1-c^2}\cos\left(\varphi+\frac{2\pi i}{r}\right)-2hc\right).
\end{align*}
Taking $x$ and $y$ as in the statement above and applying Lema \ref{lem:int} we deduce that
\begin{align*}
\Theta=&x^{2r}+y^{2r}-2x^ry^r\cos(r\varphi),
\end{align*}
that is the first assertion of Lemma. The second one is direct: as the maximum and the minimum value of the cosine are $\pm1$ it is enough to notice that
\[
x^{2r}+y^{2r}\pm2x^ry^r=|x^r\pm y^r|^2.
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{ImpCond_cota_num}
Let $p\in \mathbb{S}$ and let $S_N$ be as in \eqref{Sum_SN}. Denote by $p_i \in \mathcal{P}_N$ the points in our collection $\mathcal{P}_N$. Then, for $M\geqslant 5$,
\begin{equation*}
\log\displaystyle\prod_{k=1}^N |p-p_k| \leqslant S_N + \log 2 + \frac12.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we take $p=(\sqrt{1-c^2},0,c)$ belonging to the band $B_{\ell}$, with $1 \leqslant \ell \leqslant M$. Let us denote by $q_{j,0},\ldots,q_{j,r_j-1}$ the $r_j$ equidistributed points in the $j$--th parallel.
From Lemma \ref{lem:xey}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{cota_prod_s}
\log\prod_{k=1}^N| p-p_k|=\log\prod_{j=1}^{2M-1}\prod_{i=0}^{r_j-1}| p-q_{j,i}|\leqslant \sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}\log| x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}+y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}|,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
x_{h_j,c}=&\sqrt{1-c}\sqrt{1+h_j},\\
y_{h_j,c}=&\sqrt{1+c}\sqrt{1-h_j}.
\end{align*}
Note that the bound obtained in \eqref{cota_prod_s} can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\nonumber \sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}\log & | x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}+y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}| \\
& = \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} r_j\log x_{h_j,c} + \displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}r_j\log y_{h_j,c}
+\log| x_{h_{\ell},c}^{r_{\ell}}+y_{h_{\ell},c}^{r_{\ell}}| \label{cota_ProPP}\\
\nonumber & \hspace*{0.3cm} + \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\log| 1+y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}/x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}|+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\log|1+x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}/y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}|.
\end{align}
We know that $c\in[H_{\ell},H_{\ell-1}]$. Then, for $1\leqslant j\leqslant \ell-1$ we have $h_j\geqslant c$ and hence $x_{h_j,c}\geqslant y_{h_j,c}$. Reciprocally, for $\ell+1\leqslant
 j\leqslant 2M-1$ we get $x_{h_j,c} \leqslant y_{h_j,c}$. Moreover, if $c\in[H_{\ell},h_{\ell}]$ then $h_{\ell} \geqslant c$ and $x_{h_{\ell},c}\geqslant y_{h_{\ell},c}$, so
$$
\log |x_{h_{\ell},c}^{r_{\ell}}+y_{h_{\ell},c}^{r_{\ell}}| = r_{\ell}\log x_{h_{\ell},c} + \log |1+y_{h_{\ell},c}^{r_{\ell}}/x_{h_{\ell},c}^{r_{\ell}}| \leqslant r_{\ell}\log x_{h_{\ell},c} +\log 2,
$$
and from \eqref{Valor_Itildej} we deduce that
$$
\eqref{cota_ProPP} \leqslant \log 2 + \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} r_j\log x_{h_j,c} +\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}r_j\log y_{h_j,c}=\log 2 +\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}r_j \Tilde{I}_j (p).
$$
It is easy to check that this inequality also holds for $c\in(h_{\ell},H_{\ell-1}]$.
In any case, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}\log| x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}+y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}| &\leqslant \log 2 + \sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}r_j\Tilde{I}_j (p)\\
&\hspace*{0.25cm}+ \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\log| 1+y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}/x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}|+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\log|1+x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}/y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}|.
\end{align*}
By \eqref{Sum_SN} and using $\log(1+\alpha)\leqslant\alpha$ with $\alpha>0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}\log| x_{h_j,c}^{r_j}+y_{h_j,c}^{r_j}|\leqslant & \,\,\log 2 + S_N\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\left(\frac{(1+c)(1-h_j)}{(1-c)(1+h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2}+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\left(\frac{(1-c)(1+h_j)}{(1+c)(1-h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2},
\end{align*}
and bounding $H_{\ell}\leqslant c\leqslant H_{\ell-1}$ it is easy to see that
\begin{multline}
\log\prod_{k=1}^N| p-p_k| \leqslant  \log 2+S_N\\
+\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\left(\frac{(1+H_{\ell-1})(1-h_j)}{(1-H_{\ell-1})(1+h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2}+
\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\left(\frac{(1-H_{\ell})(1+h_j)}{(1+H_{\ell})(1-h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2} \label{acot_sum}.
\end{multline}
Next, we are going to bound the two sums in \eqref{acot_sum}.
Notice that for $\ell=1$, the first sum vanishes. We have
\begin{align*}
\eqref{acot_sum} &= \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\left(\frac{(1+H_{\ell-1})(1-h_j)}{(1-H_{\ell-1})(1+h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2}+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{M}\left(\frac{(1-H_{\ell})(1+h_j)}{(1+H_{\ell})(1-h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2}\\
& \hspace*{0.5cm}
+\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\left(\frac{(1-H_{\ell})(1-h_j)}{(1+H_{\ell})(1+h_j)}\right)^{r_j/2}\\
& = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\left(\frac{(2M^2-\ell(\ell-1))j^2}{\ell(\ell-1)(2M^2-j^2)}\right)^{2j}+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{M}\left(\frac{\ell(\ell+1)(2M^2-j^2)}{(2M^2-\ell(\ell+1))j^2}\right)^{2j}\\
&\hspace*{0.5cm}+\sum_{j=1}^{M-1}\left(\frac{\ell(\ell+1)j^2}{(2M^2-\ell(\ell+1))(2M^2-j^2)}\right)^{2j}\\
& \leqslant \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} \left(\frac{j^2}{\ell(\ell-1)}\right)^{2j}+\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{M} \left(\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{j^2}\right)^{2j}+\frac{3}{2}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1} \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)^{4j}\\
& \leqslant \frac12,
\end{align*}
since by Lemmas \ref{L_acot_sum_alpha} and \ref{L_acot_sum_2alpha} one can deduce that
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} \left(\frac{j^2}{\ell(\ell-1)}\right)^{2j} &= \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-2} \left(\frac{j^2}{\ell(\ell-1)}\right)^{2j} + \left(\frac{\ell-1}{\ell}\right)^{2(\ell-1)}
\leqslant \frac{1}{4},
\\
\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^{M} \left(\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{j^2}\right)^{2j} &= \displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+2}^{M} \left(\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{j^2}\right)^{2j} + \left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+1}\right)^{2(\ell+1)}\\&\leqslant \displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+2}^{M} \left(\frac{\ell+1}{j}\right)^{4j} + e^{-2} \leqslant \frac{1}{6},\\
\\
\frac{3}{2}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1} \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)^{4j}  &\leqslant \frac{1}{20}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The final outcome of this section will be used in the proof of our main theorem:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:C}
If $p\in B_\ell$ with $\ell\leqslant M$ and $M\geqslant 5$, then
\[
\prod_{k=1}^N |p-p_k|\leqslant 2e^{-\kappa N}\left(\frac{M}{\ell}\right)^{1/3}e^{3/4}\left(\frac{e}{2}\right)^{2/\ell}.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
  Immediate from  propositions  \ref{ImpCond_cota_num} and \ref{Cociente_Integral_cond_previo}.
\end{proof}

\section{The denominator of the condition number formula}\label{sec:denominador}

The results obtained in the previous section give us an upper bound for the numerator of \eqref{exp_cond_S2}.
Now, for any fixed $i=1,\ldots,N$, we need a lower bound for the denominator.

\begin{lemma}\label{prod_puntos_circunf_1}
Let $r$ be fixed and let $p_0,\ldots,p_{r-1}$ be $r$ equidistributed points on the unit circumference. Then
\begin{equation*}
\log \prod_{k=1}^{r-1} |p_k-p_0|=\log r.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a basic exercise in complex number theory: rotate the points in such a way that $p_{k}=e^{2i\pi k/r}$. Since the polynomial $z^r-1$ has the $r$ roots of unity as zeros, we have $\prod_{k=0}^{r-1}(z-p_{k})=z^r-1=(z-1)(1+z+\ldots+z^{r-1})$. Removing the factor $z-1$ from both terms and substituting $z=1$ we get the result.
\end{proof}
The following is an inmediate consequence:
\begin{corollary}\label{prod_puntos_circunf_r}
Let $r$ be fixed and let $p_0,\ldots,p_{r-1}$ be $r$ equidistributed points in a circumference of radius $s$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\log \prod_{k=1}^{r-1} |p_k-p_0|=\log r + (r-1)\log s.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{prop}\label{ImpCond_cota_denom}
Let $p \in \mathcal{P}_N$ be fixed and let $S_N=S_N(p)$ be as in \eqref{Sum_SN}. For $M\geqslant 5$, the following inequality holds
\begin{equation*}
\log \displaystyle\prod_{\substack{p_i\in\mathcal{P}_N\\p_i\neq p}}^N |p_i-p| \geqslant S_N + \log (2\sqrt{2}M) -\frac18.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We may assume, without loss of generality, that $p=q_{\ell,0}=(\sqrt{1-h_{\ell}^2},0,h_{\ell})$ is a point belonging to our set $\mathcal{P}_N$ located in the $\ell$--th parallel, with $1 \leqslant \ell \leqslant M$. As before, we denote by $q_{j,0},\ldots,q_{j,r_j-1}$ the $r_j$ equidistributed points in the $j$--th parallel. We write
\begin{align}
\nonumber\log \displaystyle\prod_{\substack{p_i\in\mathcal{P}_N\\p_i\neq p}}^N |p_i-p| =& \log \prod_{i=1}^{r_{\ell}-1}|q_{{\ell},0}-q_{\ell,i}|+
\nonumber \log\prod_{\substack{j=1 \\ j\neq \ell}}^{2M-1}\prod_{i=0}^{r_j-1}|q_{\ell,0}-q_{j,i}|\\
\geqslant & \log 2\sqrt{2}M + r_{\ell}\log x_{h_{\ell},h_{\ell}} + \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j \neq \ell}}^{2M-1}\log| x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}-y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|, \label{cota_den_cond_1}
\end{align}
where we have used on the one hand that, by Lemma \ref{lem:xey},
$$
\log\prod_{\substack{j=1 \\ j\neq \ell}}^{2M-1}\prod_{i=0}^{r_j-1}|q_{\ell,0}-q_{j,i}| \geqslant \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j \neq \ell}}^{2M-1}\log| x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}-y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|,
$$
with
\begin{align*}
x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}=&\sqrt{1-h_{\ell}}\sqrt{1+h_j},\\
y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}=&\sqrt{1+h_{\ell}}\sqrt{1-h_j},
\end{align*}
and on the other hand that, from Corollary \ref{prod_puntos_circunf_r}
\begin{align*}
\log \prod_{i=1}^{r_{\ell}-1}|q_{\ell,0}-q_{\ell,i}| =& \log r_{\ell} + (r_{\ell}-1)\log \sqrt{1-h_{\ell}^2}\\
=& \log \frac{r_{\ell}}{\sqrt{1-h_{\ell}^2}}+r_{\ell}\log x_{h_{\ell},h_{\ell}}\\
\geqslant & \log (2\sqrt{2}M) + r_{\ell}\log x_{h_{\ell},h_{\ell}}.
\end{align*}
For $1 \leqslant j \leqslant \ell-1$, $h_j > h_{\ell}$ so $x_{h_j,h_{\ell}} > y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}$. Reciprocally, $x_{h_j,h_{\ell}} < y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}$ for $\ell \leqslant j \leqslant 2M-1$. Thus
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j \neq \ell}}^{2M-1}\log| x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}-y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|
=& \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}r_j\log x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}+ \sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}r_j\log y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}\\
& + \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\log| 1-y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}/x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|
+ \sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\log| 1-x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}/y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|,
\end{align*}
and substituting into \eqref{cota_den_cond_1} we obtain
\begin{align}
\nonumber \log \displaystyle\prod_{\substack{p_i\in\mathcal{P}_N\\p_i\neq p}}^N |p_i-p|  \geqslant & \log (2\sqrt{2}M) + S_N + T_{\ell,j},\\
T_{\ell,j}& = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\log| 1-y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}/x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|
+ \sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}\log| 1-x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}/y_{h_j,h_{\ell}}^{r_j}|, \label{log_cotden}
\end{align}
since by \eqref{Valor_Itildej} and \eqref{Sum_SN}
$$
\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}r_j\log x_{h_j,h_{\ell}}+ \sum_{j=\ell+1}^{2M-1}r_j\log y_{h_j,h_{\ell}} = \sum_{j=1}^{2M-1}r_j \Tilde{I}_j (q_{\ell,0}) = S_N(p).
$$
Next, we use
\begin{equation}\label{des_log_m}
\log(1-\alpha)\geqslant -\frac{16}{15}\alpha, \quad \alpha \in [0,1/16],
\end{equation}
to estimate \eqref{log_cotden} (note that for $\ell=1$, the first sum vanishes).
It is not difficult to check that we can use \eqref{des_log_m} to get the following bounds for \eqref{log_cotden}.

\begin{align*}
-T_{\ell,j} \leqslant &
\frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} \left(\frac{y_{h_{j},h_{\ell}}}{x_{h_{j},h_{\ell}}}\right)^{r_j} +\frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M\left(\frac{x_{h_{j},h_{\ell}}}{y_{h_{j},h_{\ell}}}\right)^{r_j}+\frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=M+1}^{2M-1}\left(\frac{x_{h_{j},h_{\ell}}}{y_{h_{j},h_{\ell}}}\right)^{r_j}\\
= & \frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}\left(\frac{(2M^2-\ell^2)j^2}{\ell^2(2M^2-j^2)}\right)^{2j} + \frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M
\left(\frac{\ell^2(2M^2-j^2)}{(2M^2-\ell^2)j^2} \right)^{2j}\\
& \hspace{0.5cm}+\frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1} \left(\frac{\ell^2j^2}{(2M^2-\ell^2)(2M^2-j^2)}\right)^{2j}\\
\leqslant & \frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} \left(\frac{j}{\ell}\right)^{4j}+ \frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=\ell+1}^M \left(\frac{\ell}{j}\right)^{4j}+ \frac{16}{15}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{M-1} \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)^{4j}\\
\leqslant & \frac1{8},
\end{align*}
where we have used lemmas \ref{L_acot_sum_alpha} and \ref{L_acot_sum_2alpha}. The proposition follows.
\end{proof}

We will use the following easy consequence in the last section:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:D}
Let $p$ be any point of $\mathcal P_N$. Then
\[
\displaystyle\prod_{\substack{p_i\in\mathcal{P}_N\\p_i\neq p}}^N |p_i-p|  \geqslant \sqrt{2N}e^{-\kappa N}e^{-9/8}.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
  Immediate from  propositions  \ref{ImpCond_cota_denom} and \ref{Cociente_Integral_cond_previo}.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of the main results}\label{sec:final}

If $M\leqslant 4$ our proof is computer assisted: we construct the polynomial $P_N$, (that has rational coefficients) and the point set (whose points are algebraic and can thus be represented exactly in a computer algebra package), which allows us to compute exactly $\mu_{norm}$ from \eqref{eq:mu}, showing that its actually upper bounded by $N=4M^2$.
For $M\geqslant 5$, from \eqref{exp_cond_S2} and the symmetry of the construction, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(P)&=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{N(N+1)}\max_{1 \leqslant i \leqslant N}\frac{\left(\int_{\mathbb{S}} \prod_{j=1}^N |p- p_j|^2 d\sigma(p)\right)^{1/2}}{\prod_{j\neq i}| p_i- p_j|}\\
&\stackrel{\text{Cor. \ref{cor:D}}}{\leqslant}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{N(N+1)}\frac{\left(\sum_{\ell=1}^{2M-1}\int_{B_\ell} \prod_{j=1}^N |p- p_j|^2 d\sigma(p)\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2N}e^{-\kappa N}e^{-9/8}}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{N(N+1)}\frac{\left(\int_{B_M} \prod_{j=1}^N |p- p_j|^2 d\sigma(p)+2\sum_{\ell=1}^{M-1}\int_{B_\ell} \prod_{j=1}^N |p- p_j|^2 d\sigma(p)\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2N}e^{-\kappa N}e^{-9/8}}
\end{align*}
Using Corollary \ref{cor:C} and recalling that the relative area of $B_\ell$ is $r_\ell/N=\ell/M^2$, the term inside the parenthesis is bounded above  by
\begin{align*}
4e^{-2\kappa N}e^{3/2}\left(\frac{1}{M}\left(\frac{e}{2}\right)^{4/M}+\frac{2}{M^{4/3}}\sum_{\ell=1}^{M-1}\ell^{1/3}\left(\frac{e}{2}\right)^{4/\ell}\right),\\
\stackrel{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:sum3}}}{\leqslant} 4e^{-2\kappa N}e^{3/2}\left(\frac{1}{M}\left(\frac{e}{2}\right)^{4/M}+\frac32+\frac{24(1-\log 2)}{M}+\frac{6}{M^{4/3}}\right).
\end{align*}

We then have proved:
\begin{align*}
\mu_{\text{norm}}(P)&\leqslant \sqrt{\frac{N+1}2}e^{3/4+9/8}\left(\frac{1}{M}\left(\frac{e}{2}\right)^{4/M}+\frac32+\frac{24(1-\log 2)}{M}+\frac{6}{M^{4/3}}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
This proves our Theorem \ref{th:mainintro}: the term inside the parenthesis decreases with $M$ and conclude after some arithmetic:
\[
\mu_{\text{norm}}(P)\leqslant\frac{19}{2}\sqrt{N+1},
\]
which is less than $N$ for $M\geqslant 5$. Moreover, we also get a proof of Corollary \ref{cor:limsinf} since in the limit $M\to\infty$ we have
\[
\mu_{\text{norm}}(P)\leqslant \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}e^{3/4+9/8}\sqrt{N+1}.
\]